Joseph's visions of the Nephite Civilization...

[BOMG]

So then answer the question. Who is the they? I assume you are trying to make a point in asking that question. You brought up the "they" remember?

Why are you trying to be so obtuse here?

I'll play along...for a while.

Ram, you said "WE don't really even know what oceans "the great deep" or "Irreantum" refer to. Do they refer to just the pacific ocean? Or is it any ocean? The text never says."

Did they, i.e. the "Great Sea" "Great Water" "Irreantum" "Many Waters" "Deep" and "Great Deep" border Book of Mormon lands, based on the text. Thanks.

[BOMG]

Right.

6 And it came to pass that I, being *eleven years old, was carried by my father into the land southward, even to the land of Zarahemla.

7 The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea.

Why would Mormon even mention this ...

There was no contrast/comparison made, that was your interjection. Please refrain from interjecting your ideas into the text.

If the land northward was not the boyhood home of Mormon, then I don't know what is.

No one is questioning where he came from.

[Sevenbak]

Where did it say the box broke apart? I read it stayed together and as a whole slide down the hill.

"Questioning him closely he stated that he had seen some good-sized flat stones that had rolled down and lay near the bottom of the hill. This had occurred after the contents of the box had been removed and these stones were doubtless the ones that formerly composed the box. I felt a strong desire to see these ancient relics and told him I would be much pleased to have him inform me where they were to be found. He stated that they had long since been taken away."

(REMINISCENCES OF JOSEPH THE PROPHET, And the Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon by Elder Edward Stevenson, 1893 Salt Lake City, Utah)

[Hyrum Page]

Actually, I see a much more important issue about revelation. What significance do we give statements from Joseph which were not considered revelation by subsequent prophets and apostles? In the order of the church, who should have the ability to define what is and what is not a revelation?

Oddly enough, I agree with you. And, I am not advocating the use of these particular revelations as the foundation of an argument that a particular theory of Book of Mormon geography should be considered doctrinal. At the same time, I think it is dangerous to suggest that Joseph Smith's revelations, including those which are non-canonical, do not constitute evidence. Otherwise, the whole foundation of Mormon scholarship is undermined. As for what constitutes LDS doctrine, I am not certain that the precise definition of doctrine has been authoritatively outlined. I am happy to follow the May 2007 press release which draws a distinction between core doctrines and other doctrines.

I think we should not ignore the force of Joseph's claim to certain revelations about things that, though not core doctrines of the LDS Church, are nonetheless revelations. And, I would tend to value the weight of this revelatory evidence over editorials in newspapers. It is also important to remember, imo, that D&C 128:20 is part of a canon that has been identified time and again as the font of doctrine. Now, I would not say that this means I consider a particular geography theory doctrinal, but I also do not consider Cumorah to have been viewed as nothing more than a little drumlin thus called merely by convention, nor would I think that such a position is tenable in the contemporary LDS Church, if the teachings of the prophets, past and present, are to mean much.

They seem to be ignorant that the geography of the Book of Mormon was decided by revelation, therefore I really doubt that it was. I think it falls into the realm of verses 4-5 above. That is certainly the way Widtsoe perceived it.

And I am not proposing that it was. I am pointing out that Joseph Smith's revelations have evidentiary value, whether they concern core doctrine or not.

[Sevenbak]

It's worth discussing if you assume the River Sidon flows into the Land Northward, and/or was used for logging purposes. How did you envision the transport taking place? From where to where on what water ways? Just curious.

Perhaps if Mormon had given us more than a hundreth part of their discription of shipping, we would know.

Helaman 3:14 But behold, a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and their wars, and contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and their prophecies, and their shipping and their building of ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, and their righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their robbings, and their plundering, and all manner of abominations and whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work.

[Mortal Man]

I'll take "Solomon Spaulding beats up Ethan Smith" for $100, Bob.

Pfffftttt! Solomon Spaulding is for noobs!

(No offense UD.)

[Brant Gardner]

I am pointing out that Joseph Smith's revelations have evidentiary value, whether they concern core doctrine or not.

On that we can agree completely.

[Sevenbak]

There was no contrast/comparison made, that was your interjection. Please refrain from interjecting your ideas into the text.

No one is questioning where he came from.

How do you read it, if not Mormon pointing out the massive population of Zarahemla being so different from his own homeland?

[Sevenbak]

Oddly enough, I agree with you. And, I am not advocating the use of these particular revelations as the foundation of an argument that a particular theory of Book of Mormon geography should be considered doctrinal. At the same time, I think it is dangerous to suggest that Joseph Smith's revelations, including those which are non-canonical, do not constitute evidence. Otherwise, the whole foundation of Mormon scholarship is undermined. As for what constitutes LDS doctrine, I am not certain that the precise definition of doctrine has been authoritatively outlined. I am happy to follow the May 2007 press release which draws a distinction between core doctrines and other doctrines.

I think we should not ignore the force of Joseph's claim to certain revelations about things that, though not core doctrines of the LDS Church, are nonetheless revelations. And, I would tend to value the weight of this revelatory evidence over editorials in newspapers. It is also important to remember, imo, that D&C 128:20 is part of a canon that has been identified time and again as the font of doctrine. Now, I would not say that this means I consider a particular geography theory doctrinal, but I also do not consider Cumorah to have been viewed as nothing more than a little drumlin thus called merely by convention, nor would I think that such a position is tenable in the contemporary LDS Church, if the teachings of the prophets, past and present, are to mean much.

And I am not proposing that it was. I am pointing out that Joseph Smith's revelations have evidentiary value, whether they concern core doctrine or not.

[BOMG]

"Questioning him closely he stated that he had seen some good-sized flat stones that had rolled down and lay near the bottom of the hill. This had occurred after the contents of the box had been removed and these stones were doubtless the ones that formerly composed the box. I felt a strong desire to see these ancient relics and told him I would be much pleased to have him inform me where they were to be found. He stated that they had long since been taken away."

(REMINISCENCES OF JOSEPH THE PROPHET, And the Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon by Elder Edward Stevenson, 1893 Salt Lake City, Utah)

Hmm, that requires further investigating, thanks.

Perhaps if Mormon had given us more than a hundreth part of their discription of shipping, we would know.

Helaman 3:14 But behold, a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and their wars, and contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and their prophecies, and their shipping and their building of ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, and their righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their robbings, and their plundering, and all manner of abominations and whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work.

Good observation! Brant, Sorenson, and other mesotheorists use this lack of "hundredth part" to justify removing any concrete relevance to the Sea North and Sea South.

.

[BOMG]

I think we should not ignore the force of Joseph's claim to certain revelations about things that, though not core doctrines of the LDS Church, are nonetheless revelations. And, I would tend to value the weight of this revelatory evidence over editorials in newspapers. It is also important to remember, imo, that D&C 128:20 is part of a canon that has been identified time and again as the font of doctrine. Now, I would not say that this means I consider a particular geography theory doctrinal, but I also do not consider Cumorah to have been viewed as nothing more than a little drumlin thus called merely by convention, nor would I think that such a position is tenable in the contemporary LDS Church, if the teachings of the prophets, past and present, are to mean much.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'll play along...for a while.

Ram, you said "WE don't really even know what oceans "the great deep" or "Irreantum" refer to. Do they refer to just the pacific ocean? Or is it any ocean? The text never says."

Did they, i.e. the "Great Sea" "Great Water" "Irreantum" "Many Waters" "Deep" and "Great Deep" border Book of Mormon lands, based on the text. Thanks.

You are assigning some mischevious intent to my posting to you. I assure you it was an honest question. What might seem so obvious to you is not that obvious to others. Why could you just not answer the question the first time I asked?

The way your responce was worded it made it seem as if you were talking about a group of people instead of a body of water.

Any way, too the point.

You have no evidence that they did not live near an ocean. There is strong supportive evidence that the Nephites thought that they were on an island or at least mostly surrounded by water. Further more there would be a total argument from silence to insist that the "Great Sea" "Great Water" "Irreantum" "Many Waters" "Deep" and "Great Deep" refers to the atlantic ocean. The text never says. The closes we can say is that Irreantum might refer to the Pacific ocean as it is recognized as the largest ocean to day. But even then that is an assupmtion. The text does not give enough evidence if regarding weather or not they did or did not live next to an ocean. So we must toss it out as it has no bearing on the discussion.

Did they, i.e. the "Great Sea" "Great Water" "Irreantum" "Many Waters" "Deep" and "Great Deep" border Book of Mormon lands, based on the text

The text never says one way or another. That is my point. For you to state "no" you would need to show evidence that this is indeed the case. And if it isn't mentioned that is not an indication taht they didn't live next to them.

[BOMG]

There is strong supportive evidence that the Nephites thought that they were on an island or at least mostly surrounded by water. ..

You take that reference literally, being on an island? Just curious.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You take that reference literally, being on an island? Just curious.

No I do not, but there is a refernce that they thought that they were surrounded by water nearly on all sides.

Alma 22: 32

32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half

[BOMG]

No I do not, but there is a refernce that they thought that they were surrounded by water nearly on all sides.

Alma 22: 32

32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Land Northward was completely surrounded by water.

Not to split hairs but the text says that the land that was surronded nearly by water was the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla.

The narrow neck of land was what separted the land north from the land south.

[BOMG]

Not to split hairs but the text says that the land that was surronded nearly by water was the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla.

The narrow neck of land was what separted the land north from the land south.

What are your thoughts on the "sea that divided the land?"

[Brant Gardner]

You take that reference literally, being on an island? Just curious.

I assume you don't. When do you change from literal to metaphorical? As I remember, you were on the other side of this same type of issue earlier. How do you distinguish between the two?

[BOMG]

I assume you don't. When do you change from literal to metaphorical? As I remember, you were on the other side of this same type of issue earlier. How do you distinguish between the two?

I think the metaphorical option emerges only when a literal isn't present. We have never needed a metaphorical explanation for the geography.

[Sevenbak]

The Land Northward was completely surrounded by water.

I'm going to have to ask for a CFR on that one.

[Sevenbak]

Pfffftttt! Solomon Spaulding is for noobs!

(No offense UD.)

Wait, are you saying that an established teaching trumps modern theories?

How ironic you would bring that up on this thread. Probably one of the few things we'll agree on.

[Sevenbak]

You take that reference literally, being on an island? Just curious.

Considering that Nephi mentions the teachings of Zenock about what would happen to the scattered Israel on the isles of the sea, I think they thought they were on something similar.

However, I don't believe the geography we see today is necessarily the same as they lived on and wrote about.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What are your thoughts on the "sea that divided the land?"

You know I am not sure.

It would seem that the BoM peoples used some phrases that appear to us (well me) to be inconsistant or at best vague. Irreantum being one of those phrases.

Let me look at the scriptures for some context.

Just as an FYI, I am not a proponet of any theories that are currenlty out there. I amintain that we simply do not know were the BoM lands are.

I just don't think there is enough evidence to pin point a location.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Considering that Nephi mentions the teachings of Zenock about what would happen to the scattered Israel on the isles of the sea, I think they thought they were on something similar.

However, I don't believe the geography we see today is necessarily the same as they lived on and wrote about.

I think the Nephites may have seen it that way. Is that really how it was though? I don't think so.

[Sevenbak]

Not to split hairs but the text says that the land that was surronded nearly by water was the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla.

The narrow neck of land was what separted the land north from the land south.

I don't think you are splitting hairs, it's a needed distinction.